Delhi HC Remands Piramal Capital And Housing Finance’s PMLA Attachment Challenge For Fresh Hearing After Tribunal Overlooked Second FIR

The Directorate of Enforcement challenged the Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 16 April 2026, which had set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s confirmation of a provisional attachment order concerning property of Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

The Tribunal relied on the quashing of FIR No. RC2172018A0004 and the dismissal of the CBI’s Special Leave Petition against that decision.

The Directorate argued that the attachment was also based on a separate FIR, No. RC 2172018A0003, in which a charge sheet had been filed, and that the Tribunal had not considered that FIR or the effect of quashing the other FIR on the attachment.

The High Court condoned the 57-day delay in filing the appeal.

Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), provided the basis for the appeal to the High Court.

The Court relied on Directorate of Enforcement v. Bhupesh Arora, order dated 29 September 2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 13532/2026, for the principle that quashing a predicate-offence FIR on compromise does not, by itself, obliterate the existence of proceeds of crime; the effect of the quashing on the attachment must be considered.

The Tribunal had set aside the attachment solely because FIR No. RC2172018A0004 had been quashed, without considering the separate FIR of 1 May 2018, which also formed part of the basis for the provisional attachment.

Further, under the principle stated in Bhupesh Arora, quashing a predicate-offence FIR does not automatically determine whether proceeds of crime exist or resolve the validity of an attachment.

The Tribunal therefore had to assess the effect of the quashing independently and consider the other FIR before deciding the appeal.

It left all parties’ contentions open and requested that the appeal be listed with the connected matters on 18 November 2026 and be disposed of expeditiously.